nanog mailing list archives
Re: Point to Point Ethernet
From: Zartash Uzmi <zartash () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:33:10 +0500
Cayle, This may be partial hijack of the thread or even a trivial query but I ask this since you mentioned "For cost reasons, Ethernet is often used". We hear this argument all the time. The standard unabridged reason I have learned is the ubiquity of Ethernet devices, whatever that means. Can you say why precisely the cost of Ethernet is low compared to other viable alternatives? Zartash On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Cayle Spandon <cayle.spandon () gmail com>wrote:
I frequently run into scenarios where two devices (two routers, or a router and a host) need a point-to-point connection to each other with a capacity of (much) more than 10 Gbps. For cost reasons, Ethernet is often used. Since more than 10 Gbps is needed, we end up with multiple parallel 10GE point-to-point connections. Because the devices often don't support LAG or have limitations on the number of links in a LAG, we often cannot use LAG at all or cannot put all 10GE links in a single LAG group. So, we end up with multiple parallel layer-3 point-to-point connections where each connections is either an Ethernet or a LAG group. Furthermore, in order to conserve IP addresses, there is a desire to make these interfaces unnumbered. The involved devices have a numbered loopback interface whose address is used as the "donor" for the unnumbered Ethernet / LAG interfaces. Most router vendors already support unnumbered point-to-point Ethernet, see for example: http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos9.5/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-network-interfaces/interfaces-configuring-an-unnumbered-interface.html#id-10432956 However, there are some interoperability issues / open questions related to point-to-point unnumbered Ethernet, see for example: http://forums.juniper.net/jnet/board/message?board.id=JUNOS&message.id=130 http://forums.juniper.net/jnet/board/message?board.id=switch&thread.id=835 I would be very interested in some standards (i.e. an IETF BCP) to describe the best current practices for these applications of Ethernet. I am not particularly interested in re-inventing a new flavor of Ethernet for this application. All that is needed, in my opinion, is some clarifications or best practices on how to use the existing standards to create point-to-point unnumbered Ethernet connections. PS -- I am also aware of some esoteric BRAS applications of Ethernet where one side is numbered and the other side is unnumbered.
Current thread:
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet, (continued)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Ricky Beam (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 08)
- RE: Point to Point Ethernet Tomas L. Byrnes (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Randy Bush (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Ricky Beam (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Anton Kapela (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet sthaug (Jul 08)
- RE: Point to Point Ethernet Tomas L. Byrnes (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Saqib Ilyas (Jul 09)
- RE: Point to Point Ethernet Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Cayle Spandon (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Zartash Uzmi (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 09)
- RE: Point to Point Ethernet Rod Beck (Jul 11)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet sthaug (Jul 12)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: Point to Point Ethernet - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jul 12)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet sthaug (Jul 08)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Ricky Beam (Jul 09)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Chris Adams (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Seth Mattinen (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet Brian Raaen (Jul 10)
- Re: Point to Point Ethernet William Allen Simpson (Jul 11)
- RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: Point to Point Ethernet - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses Rod Beck (Jul 11)